Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
brickbuilder-mcp

brickbuilder-mcp

by ElRashoMacuin24
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

new_model

Create a new empty LEGO model, replacing the open one; autosave preserves your work for later editing.

Instructions

Start a new empty model (replaces the open one; models autosave).

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "new_model"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYes
descriptionNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose two important traits: it replaces the open model (destructive side effect) and models autosave (so existing work is persisted rather than silently lost). It stops short of describing reversibility (undo exists as a sibling) or any confirmation/error behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words; the destructive effect is placed immediately after the action. It is arguably terse to the point of omitting needed parameter context, but as structure it is clean.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the description covers the key side effect and autosave behavior. The gap is parameter semantics plus any note on recoverability (undo is a sibling), which leaves the agent under-informed for a no-annotation mutation tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% and two parameters exist (required 'name', optional 'description'), yet the description says nothing about either. It does not explain what the name is used for or whether description has any constraint, leaving both undocumented in both schema and prose.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('start a new empty model') and distinguishes itself from open_model by emphasizing 'empty' and 'new'. However, it never names the sibling it contrasts with, so differentiation is implicit rather than explicit.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The parenthetical clarifies the effect on the currently open model, which implicitly tells the agent when this is appropriate versus open_model, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to any sibling.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools